Bill Maher’s Christine O’Donnell clips
What does this video reveal?
(1) O’Donnell annoys liberals no end, and has been doing so for quite some time.
(2) She has a lot of experience being in the line of rhetorical fire.
(3) She’s pretty charming, which doesn’t hurt.
(4) She’s no dummy.
(5) Bill Maher doesn’t have quite the ammunition he suggested he did.
Take a look:
Funny that one of the clips features our senator-to-be from Minnesota, Al Franken himself.
[Hat tip: Althouse.]
This clip reminded me of the dynamic we see liberals use with global warming. Portray a concensus overwhelming the denier. Of course their adolescent conformity requiring zero courage of having an independant thought never dawns on them.
The odious and self-congratulatory Maher leaves a slime trail like a slug.
I have always had little stomach for Mahrer (especially when he gets going on the subject of faith, Catholicism in particular), but there is something particularly revolting about inviting O’Donnell to participate in his talk show then being perfectly willing to turn around and exploit her by releasing these clips that support his own politics.
Of course, the fact that she propped up Mahrer’s show (and took money from him) isn’t exactly points in O’Donnell’s favor either, in my book.
Mahrer has always struck me as a supremely unhappy person. I have read that he is a big softie when it comes to animals (people, not so much).
He’d probably make an interesting psychological case study.
“dynamic we see liberals use…. Portray a concensus overwhelming the denier.”
Exactly.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Separately, it seems marginally easier for women to speak straight conservative talk in public. Not totally easier, yet a bit easier. It may have to do with smaller stature and softer voices. It may have to do with women as natural nurturers – thus women are not so easily pigeonholed as heartless and uncaring: its easier for women to argue that they do care, and that their recommended policies are the most caring policies.
I look around, and who are the conservative politicians with the guts to talk straight? Christie. And then come the women: Palin, Bachmann, Angle, Brewer, O’Donnell, Whitman, and I probably missed somebody. Almost all of this dynamic occurs b/c those women simply are gutsier than many male counterparts. Yet, maybe, just a little tiny bit, it helps to be a woman. You can use straight talk and not be so easily demonized as a bully.
One more thing re O’Donnell:
she’s getting better all the time. She’s a learning organism.
I’ve seen tiny snippets of her through the years, and she was never my cup of tea. Yet, she was so young. So. Young. I’ve seen more of her the last 4 months. She is clearly better, now, than she was even 3 months ago. To her credit: she is a learning organism. Its a very good aspect of her personality. And she’s getting better.
Not surprisingly Maher fails to give credit where credit is due.
Unlike the rest of those cowards on his panel O’Donnell is courageously going into that lion’s den with an opinion (often shared by a majority of Americans) alone.
I don’t know if she’s Senate material, but she’s unflappable, persistant, and a lot better than that go-along, get-along, useful idiot the Democrats have up against her.
and O’Donnell knows how to smile.
“RT @LJZumpano: @HeyTammyBruce u r right. It’s that @SarahPalinUSA smile thats turns left into wimpy, wimpy whiners”
It’s tough to fight them when they have the “MFM” on their side. The “newscasts” have been playing the Supreme Court case answer over and over and over and over…. and of course they never show a clip of any of her effective rebuttals to Coons, her opponent.
Ne. Ver.
We really have to do something about the MFM. What, I’m not sure. They’ve effectively made Fox and talk radio “radioactive” to all self-styled bien-pensants. Even if they hadn’t, I’m not sure it would matter.
My own sister, a more garden-variety Democrat and not a Leftist (patriotic, never admired Commies, etc.) said to me at the last election, “You’ll have to give up on me, Bev. I just feel [there’s that word again!] like it’s nicer for us to all work together in a community. And I can’t bring myself to vote for a bunch of rich people.”
My sister wasn’t an idiot, at least about nonpolitical issues. But when it came to politics, she flat refused to think. She patronizingly ascribed my awakening post-9/11 to being “traumatized” [pore thang!] by the event. You know, “kinda deranged, but we have to pity her. . ..”
I will say that, like most Dims I know, she was actuated by feelings rather than reason, and those feelings were based on the Kool-aid she’s quaffed. She wouldn’t sample any non-Left-approved beverages.
She died in April of last year (cancer). I wonder what she would have thought of Obummer if she’d lived? No; actually, like two of my cousins, she probably would’ve just blamed the Republicans for any problems, and continued blindly on.
A Leftist friend in NYC was bitching last year about the Republicans in the City Council “blocking progress — I wish we could just get rid of them!” “But Sarah, there ARE NO Republicans on the NY City Council! except maybe two from Staten Island.” She just pouted and said, “Well, I wish we could get rid of ALL of them.”
Republicans = Emmanuel Goldsteins forever.
Here is a clip of Palin in California.
She will be the next President, elected in 2012.
She simply has no equal out there. She’ll be bigger than Obama, and she is good, solid and real where he is the antithesis of all of those things.
This speech is really good.
http://www.therightscoop.com/sarah-palins-powerful-speech-at-gop-anaheim-rally
@ Mike Mc.
Sorry man, I’m not feeling it. I love the gal. I just think she’d make a crappy President.
Bill Maher has never been funny. Nor has Al Franken. I suggest a crash program to resurrect Peter Sellers.
You said it, JC. start a fund and I’ll contribute.
Vieux,
You have nothing to base that on but the slander she’s got from media and Dems, and the eye-rolling Rinos.
On every policy she is point-perfect. Every one.
She has charisma, charm, good humor. She’s a real American.
You might not get her, but there is no one even close to her right now. And Scores of millins of real Americans love her.
That is because she is the only one who had the guts to face up to the tyrants from Day 1. She has already shown her metal. It’s steel.
Sorry man, I’m not feeling it. I love the gal. I just think she’d make a crappy President.
Crappier than Obama?
My father was watching some news program today (do not know the channel) that was complaining about this race and other that the “tea party” crowd has ruined – it was a ten minute complaint that fails to see exactly why it is occuring and why it will be good long term if not on the short term.
The point was that the Tea Party people put someone like O’donnell on the ticket and she is a weaker candidate than than a non-tea party candidate. I’ll buy that – revolutions usually are that way.
What they person doesn’t realize is that even amongst partisans simply having the “R” or “D” after their name is no longer motivating in and of itself. There is a revolution coming, I still more or less expect a bloody end to it but am hopefull that it will not be so – the “Tea Party” is one of the avenues to a non-bloody one.
If the Dems were having their own I would be quite confident in it working out without violence. However as far as I can see they are circling their wagons preparing for the fight. Even those that are bitterly disappointed in Obama and the current congress are *still* going to support them, primarily because they can’t get the Tea Party as they figure it is a Right Wing Group (and it isn’t at its core – it is only that because many conservatives have always wanted a group that thinks that way).
Yea, we may not gain quite as many seats as we may have if you are after an ‘R’ next to the name – I’ll not argue that point (after all, traditional media still retains a great deal of power), but if you are after specific conservative ideas instead of a team I suspect you could do no better than this election is going to at this point in history.
Even if those people ultimately loose the general election the idea is there – in our current gerrymandered districts the fact that these races exist as is *has* to be seen by some. If congress doesn’t fix itself in the next few years then I shudder to think what is going to happen.
I have to agree that the tea party represents a positive force in the body politic. With a hopefully big influx of tea party influenced congress people the “not a dime’s worth of difference” meme can finally be put out to pasture.
And the best part is this tea party enthusiasm has the advantage of upsetting the status quo for both party leadership. I just hope the freshman class is large and unruly enough to substantially move the country alway from the conventional wisdom of the post FDR stasis.
Dude, I have defended Palin from day one – to the point that she’d be a much better President than the hopey-changey clown currently residing in the White House.
But God man, your qualification of “charisma, charm, good humor” is exactly the same thin, cult-of-personality nonsense that got Obama elected. Sure, on the state level she briefly proved that she can be a get ‘er done kind of gal, but like the current boob in office, she has no (zip, zilch, nada) grasp of monetary policy, foreign policy, the military, federal Constitutional authority, judicial precedents, the legislative process or federal executive authority.
Sarah Palin is a woman of incredible drive and zeal and I respect her for that, but she has neither a practical vision nor the skills to lead a country. She is right wing ideologe, full of catchy quips and one-liners – the doppleganger of the current empty suit we have in office now. You might as well elect Rush Limbaugh.
Think about it. A country of over 300,000,000. You don’t think we can do better than Sarah Palin?
That sir, is a false choice. We’ve got an entire Republican primary season before any of us are forced to make that decision.
Charles,
…like the current boob in office, she has no (zip, zilch, nada) grasp of monetary policy, foreign policy, the military, federal Constitutional authority, judicial precedents, the legislative process or federal executive authority.
First, I don’t agree with you a bit. And I repeat you have no actual evidence to make such a statement except for the propaganda and slant you’ve ingested for two years now.
Second, no one in the word probably has the total qualifications that you listed above. If they are your standards they are so impossibly high tnhat we are sunk.
Three, a policy wonk or or brainiac is not only not required for the job, it’s to be avoided. What we want for President in America is a normal person, an ordinary person, a decent and good person who is “smart enough” and “mature enough” and “wise enough” and “politically savvy enough” tp do the job.
A few limiting qualifications are that they have the right principles and the requisite toughness and humility.
The main thing above all things is principles. Palin has the right one. Even if she were otherwise terrible (she isn’t) she would still be good. She only wouldn’t do as much good as she good.
A person with the wrong principles can never do good and only evil no matter what they do. That’s Obama and far too many national Repubs (McCain being the prefect example of a man with the wrong principles).
Anyway, I only get one vote. And Palin is the one to say if she will run or not. And if she doesn’t, not a big deal for me.
But if she does,m I don’t see anyone beating her for the nomination or the general election. Why? She’s better than all potential candidates right now. And right now we need the best available. She’s it.
The names that are better than her are? You have to name someone “dude”. You can’t just make general criticisms without naming and defending the better persons (and you imply there are several).
Sorry was testing but it does get annoying — apparently this site doesn’t like tinyurls? So, I’ll not add my source — google it if you wish, again my apologies.
The most irresponsible statement I’ve seen from O’Donnell on video is the scenario that asked of her, “If Nazi soldiers came to your door and asked are there Jews hiding here [and suppose there were] her answer was, God would ‘provide a way for her to do the right thing’ but what ever that could be it certainly would not be an untruth.”
What a proud ignoramus. She has no understanding of maturity or reality. How shameful and disgusting.
Right in. Right out. Left in. Left out. The beat goes on.
This computer location is blocked… so i have to be a tad creative with my name :\
Mike Mc and Charles:
1) Sarah is a very effective politician, she can harness votes and excitement and attachment.
2) #1 Tells you nothing about whether she will be a good president. She may be great, she may be terrible, it provides no information.
The only substance we know about Palin is from Alaska. She had a lot of crooks thrown in jail or thrown out of office. Some of them were people who used to support her. Her campaign manager had an affair, and so she fired him.
The other peice of information we have are the deals she signed for the state with the oil companies. Deals that were supposedly better (for the state) than what were done by the previously corrupt politicians.
Based on the above two examples we know, Palin’s resume is pretty thin, but a lot thicker than Obama’s. Palin is pretty ambitious, and pretty hard nosed about ethics issues – qualities that sometimes coincide.
Ultimately, you would probably like to know more about her (through performance in some other office) before you make her president. But you may not get that chance. One of the thickest resumes at the youngest age belongs to Bobby Jihndal. But he doesn’t have Palin’s political skills, and with our current crop of voters, political skills win.
James
Mike Mc wrote:
“Three, a policy wonk or or brainiac is not only not required for the job, it’s to be avoided. What we want for President in America is a normal person, an ordinary person, a decent and good person who is “smart enough” and “mature enough” and “wise enough” and “politically savvy enough” to do the job.”
On other words we need another Harding or Fillmore.
She doesn’t have enough experience period, although she would be heads and tails better President than Obama, but so would my cat.
It’s like we’ve already become a third world country – as if our electoral judgment goes only as far as the candidate’s abilility to exude charisma.
As a manager I’ve always been careful not to promote people who promote themselves; I look for those who keep their nose to the grind, who get results, who mentor those around them and take responsibility for those who are under their authority. I apply the same when I mark my ballot.
The American voter is too easily swayed by talk and bluster. Rather than proven leadership, command of issues, and the political abilility to sway the opposition without giving in to principles our electorate gives primacy to “charisma, charm, good humor”. With them Jindal doesn’t stand a chance.
At this, I’m compelled to defer to the late George Carlin, “garbage in, garbage out”.
God, we’re screwed.
Here you go start @ 1:00.
I agree that some of the key requirements for a President are that he or she be a patriot and has a reverence for the Constitution and our Republic, that such a person is a passionate defender of America and believes deeply in our “exceptionalism” and our role in the world, that such a person has a deep knowledge of and familiarity with our history, and loves and understands and respects America and her people, that his or her principles are the right ones– are traditional, and in line with the principles of the Founders, that such a person has a great deal of experience in all sorts of jobs, working with all sorts of people, and has worked and supported himself, that such a President must have a very clear view of reality, good general knowledge, have a superb “bullshit meter,” and the ability to see who people really are, that they be courageous, tough, and pragmatic when they need to be, that they are decisive, and that they be honest–or as honest as a politician can ever be; and that, above all, such a President must have wisdom and maturity, and take the “long view” of what will be best for America, and is willing to do whatever it takes–whatever the cost to that President–so that America does survive and prosper. Beyond that, if such a President’s principles are correct and he is a good judge of character, then he can always assemble a “general staff” of experts to assist and advise him in carrying out the manifold and heavy duties of the Presidency.
In looking over what I have written above, I cannot help but notice that the essential qualifications for the President I have laid out above are exactly the qualities that Obama has proven–by his words and actions–that he does not, in any way, possess, and I think that by now it is dawning on more and more people that the only attitudes Obama has toward the United States, its Constitution, and its people trhose of contempt, disdain, and outright hatred.
Bob, When you say she doesn’t have enough experience, I say you are just parroting the liberal line you’ve been told to hold.
She has as much or similar experience to Bush, Clinton, Regan, Carter (all Governors). Kennedy and Obama were only Senators and that is experience for what exactly? Senators basically do nothing at all requiring intelligence or experience except politic and appear on TV from time to time.
You are just saying things without content.
She’s been a Mayor, a Governor, A Candidate, a speaker, and writer. She is partner to a man with a real business, and has raised a real family. And yes, she has been a Beauty Queen Contestant, which is also a real experience.
You cannot name another person with her credentials or unique abilities. If you could, that person would already be out there doing it, and you’d name and defend them.
james,
That was quite an intelligent and sensitive response by O’Donnell on the Nazi question.
You should be wondering who asked that question and in what context. If it was in a recent debate, the questioner is the true idiot.
If you think that response is disqualifying then you are the one with the problem.
Mike Mc,
My biggest problem with Sarah at this point is her lack of foreign policy experience which is coupled with the horrendous press she and Tea Partiers have received abroad. Bush’s effectiveness abroad suffered because the NYT/WaPo picture of him was accepted as truth. If Sarah is wise, she will realize this and do something to establish a bit of creditability with foreign actors who could defend her against some of the unfair assaults she will receive. Right now, her election would give our enemies (especially the lefties in allied countries) a further excuse to pull the rug out from under us, and cooperation with her would threaten the political future of the most level-headed foreign leaders.
Well, Jamessmiterson or whoever the hell you really are, How would YOU answer that question?
That was not a question asked to garner information, but only to place the person answering in a box. There is no answer. Any thing she could have said would have been treated exactly as you have. Is that the kind of politics you prefer? Sounds pretty shameful and disgusting to me, not to mention childish, underhanded and desperate.
Wouldn’t it be more interesting to actually have an adult conversation about the differences in approaches to the problems the country is facing? Christine can handle that, obviously Mr. Coons can’t without support from vipers such as you, the MSM goon squad and now the POTUS and VPOTUS. The harder you all work to prop his sorry ass up the weaker and more incompetent he looks. Shameful and disgusting indeed!
Oh, by the way; When did you stop beating your wife?
As an aside maybe Jamesalphabetsoup has more information on some questions about Mr. Coons that have been bothering me since Harry Reid gave him his endorsement. Specifically:
Is Harry’s “pet” (Poodle?) house trained?
Does he heel and do tricks?
What kind of treats was he trained on and are they purchased with taxpayer dollars?
Does Harry keep him on a leash or does he have a shock collar?
Enquiring minds want to know…
Expat,
My biggest problem with Sarah at this point is her lack of foreign policy experience which is coupled with the horrendous press she and Tea Partiers have received abroad.
I have to call them as I see them. That is an incredibly lame reason – and it is your biggest. It is so weak and lame that it really cannot be your biggest.
Therefore, there must be some other reason you have since that 1st one does not even rise to the level of beyond weird. What is it?
I’d prefer you just openly state it. It couldn’t possibly be worse than the one you named, and must be better.
Foreign Policy experience???
Please tell me, what is that?
Then tell me the number of US Presidents ever in history who had the thing you are going to explain to us.
And what “the world” thinks of us based on our MSM???
I have to restrain myself expat. I am restraining myself.
BTW, I’ve lived several years over seas. If you’ve gone native over there, that’s your problem. We Americans don’t give a rat’s arse about it. They are as corrupt as it gets. they are where O is taking us and where Palin will not let us go.,
Wm Lawrence
Yes, I must form my opinions not as observer but as if the responsibility were mine, as if I were on the spot. It’s the least we must do.
Well, Jamessmiterson or whoever the hell you really are, How would YOU answer that question?
And the question was: If Nazi soldiers came to your door and asked are there Jews hiding here [and suppose there were] ….”
Well, If I initiated the responsibility to hide Jews in my house, say somewhere in Nazi-occupied lands during WW2, I sincerely hope I would say “of course not.”
O’Donnell. like Palin, will stand there starry eyed waiting for God to tell her what to do — this indeed might endear her to the hypothetical Nazi’s standing at the door and thus it’s critically more important the public knows less about a candidates memorized policy positions and more about HOW THEY FORM OPINIONS.
Is that so difficult to understand, does this rise to the level of “inquiring minds want to know…”, what’s your major malfunction? SCREW YOUR PETTY POLITICAL LOYALTIES AND STAND ON PRINCIPLE. YOU APPARENTLY HAVE NONE, GET SOME.
Mike Mc,
My point was that Palin will not get any breaks in foreign affairs. The media and the lefties here will be gunning for her from the day she announces and they will do all they can to prevent anyone else from cooperating in any way. If she plans to run in 2012, she should anticipate this and prepare herself with countermeasures. I have definitely not gone native. Rather, I have seen how Europeans use what power they have to undermine American aims–a trade deal here in return for a UN vote there, etc. Palin has found a voice that speaks to and energizes a previously passive segment of the American people. I would simply like her to spend some time learning how she can talk to the people abroad so that everything she says is not twisted by the media and “intellectuals.” Our next president will have to get us out of the Obama bow and scrape mode and project American self confidence. If Sarah is planning to run, I hope she is giving some thought about how to do this. I know she wouldn’t be stupid enough to give the Queen of England an iPod with her own speeches, but it would be great if she could find a way to break through to the average man and woman on the street. She has been very busy with her work in the US, and as Krauterhammer said this week, she has broken the stranglehold of radical feminists over American women. I consider that a major accomplishment. I am not putting Palin down. I actually believe her foreign policy principles and instincts are likely to be good. I just want her to think about how she can sell her positions abroad and test the field a bit.
“My point is that Palin will not get any breaks in foreign affairs.” So true. The question is, who will? No matter who the nominee or (hopefully) Barry’s replacement is they are going to be pasted by the left and by the MSM. That person is going to receive the full “George Bush” for as long as they are running or as long as they are in office. That’s a fact of life and I don’t see it changing and I doubt if the identity of the nominee will make a bit of difference (unless of course, it’s Hillary). Does that mean we allow the opposition to select our nominee ala the NYT and John McCain?
So Sarah doesn’t have foreign affairs experience: Who does? And do those who have also have executive experience and a history of standing up against corruption? Do any of the others resonate as well with the majority of american electorate? I’m not pushing any candidate, but we shouldn’t be straining so hard to to eliminate any of them without a serious and dispassionate vetting process and most of the negativity I’ve read on this thread about Sarah and for that matter Christine are just Democrat talking points which is to say bulls**t. I will vote for whoever the Republican nominee might be, not simply because of the R designation, but because they are more likely to be representative of my “principles” and values than the current carnival of horrors that has engulfed our government and a third party candidate has no chance of being elected.
I guess it would be wonderful if the whole world loved and respected us, but it’s never going to happen. It never was and never will be. Again, I think it’s folly to choose our leaders with that in mind. Does any other nation stop to consider our reaction when they choose their leadership (assuming they have that option)? If they did we wouldn’t be dealing with some of the corrupt and duplicitous a-holes that cause us so much trouble. Has “the world” cut us any slack at all for catering to the europeans’ infatuation with Obama? Not that you might notice. Now they think we are arrogant AND stupid.
The idea that the POTUS is required to be an ivy league alumnus does not comport with the plain language of the constitution and the record of presidents who hold that credential is no better and in several cases is much worse than others who didn’t have them. Look how it’s working for Barry? Thus the anal retentive concentration on educational venues is just snobbishness. Most of the really smart people are self taught to some degree and the recent crop of Democrat ivy leaguers are living proof that even Harvard can’t fix stupid.
Jameswhatever,
Congratulations on your enormous courage in “sincerely hoping” that you would say “of course not”. Your Medal of Honor citation is in the mail. However, in what way is that answer any better than Christine’s?
Of course the ethical thing to do would be to deny the presence of the fugitives in your house, and some germans and other europeans actually had the occasion and courage to do so. Some survived the experience, but most did not.
Saying you would comply with what is now acknowledged to be the most ethical stance is cheap and easy since there is no existential risk.
Such an answer would have been derided by you and your ilk for just that reason.
Any other response would have allowed the weasel corps to claim that she was not only a witch, but a secret nazi or to find some other bogus excuse to call her an ignoramus, which brings us back to where we are.
Politics of innuendo. Truly disgusting. And you have the gall to question MY principles?
Are you really saying in such a hypothetical case that by defending innocent citizens in hiding from a criminal state, by defending the hiding Jews that would make you a secret Nazi; giving the answer she gave could make me suspect she is a secret Nazi. It was a simple ethical scenario and relying on the intervention of a non-deity is not the same as the real courage of defending those in hiding. When I said I hope I would do the ethical thing I hope fair minds will see that I was being humble.
Why can’t the Nyom’s, Bill Maher’s and etc of the world judge people on the positions they hold on the issues.
I find these judgmental people to be the problem.
They can’t think clearly.
Memorizing a position as opposed to the process by how a person thinks, comes to a solution, ability to think clearly in a reasoned sense, is precisely the different.
Baklava, you’re making progress.
Me: Crappier than Obama?
That sir, is a false choice. We’ve got an entire Republican primary season before any of us are forced to make that decision.
No, not a “false choice” but a legitimate hypothetical question in order to know where the commentor stands. And the commentor makes it clear that his support of Palin would be grudgingly given because:
… she[Palin] has no (zip, zilch, nada) grasp of monetary policy, foreign policy, the military, federal Constitutional authority, judicial precedents, the legislative process or federal executive authority.
… which makes me wonder what type of statements made by Palin in, say, the last year and a half, that moves the commentor to his conclusion about Palin’s failure to “grasp” these issues. I think the readers would appreciate some links that might illustrate Palin’s supposed lack of comprehension — instead of mere canard sans ANY evidence from the commentor. The commentor goes on to pronounce that:
… she[Palin] has neither a practical vision nor the skills to lead a country. She is right wing ideologue, full of catchy quips and one-liners – the doppelganger of the current empty suit we have in office now. You might as well elect Rush Limbaugh.
I guess the commentor doesn’t like Limbaugh, either. Too right wing for the commentor’s taste, I suppose. In the past I’ve had reservations about Limbaugh myself but I think the nation could do a LOT worse than to elect Limbaugh.
My biggest problem with Sarah at this point is her lack of foreign policy experience …
I wonder if the commentor realizes that Ronald Reagan had no(zip, zilch, nada) foreign policy experience before being elected President. So, in an hypothetical, if presented with a choice today between Reagan and a Democrat opponent with some foreign policy experience the commentor would no doubt vote for the Democrat candidate. Interesting.
… which is coupled with the horrendous press she and Tea Partiers have received abroad. Bush’s effectiveness abroad suffered because the NYT/WaPo picture of him was accepted as truth. If Sarah is wise, she will realize this and do something to establish a bit of creditability with foreign actors who could defend her against some of the unfair assaults she will receive. Right now, her election would give our enemies (especially the lefties in allied countries) a further excuse to pull the rug out from under us, and cooperation with her would threaten the political future of the most level-headed foreign leaders.
I don’t give a tinker’s damn what the overseas media, or for that matter, the American MSM think about a potential candidate. In fact, if the overseas media doesn’t like an American to my mind it is usually a sign that the that particular person has been doing something right.
But some folks here in the US, especially Progressives, yearn for approval from these idiots. What the commentor doesn’t seem to realize is that the overseas media will NEVER approve of ANY American conservative. Likewise, the US MSM. They vilified Reagan, Bush sr. and Bush, jr. and will continue to demonize any conservative figure in politics until at last, without viewers and readers, they fade into the obscurity they deserve.
I would simply like her[Palin] to spend some time learning how she can talk to the people abroad so that everything she says is not twisted by the media and “intellectuals.”
Note to commentor: Palin is never going to say anything that is NOT twisted by the media. It is her message they hate, NOT her method of communication.
J,
I’m merely stating the obvious fact that IS a hypothetical case, that it has no meaning in the real world and that the correct response is meaningless, because saying you would do the right thing is cheap and easy. It would truly be an ethical dilemma if you were actually looking down the barrel of an SS or Gestapo Luger and if the wrong choice would mean that you and your family would be summarily executed. Since that factor is not testable the question is null. There is no courage, nor any credit in mouthing the expected response. And that response can be characterized as false piety or sanctimony.
On the other hand NOT mouthing the PC response can be twisted into anything, as it has been.
Unlike you I don’t pretend to know the secrets of the universe and therefore I don’t pass judgement on how people deal with their metaphysical issues. The truth is that this country was founded, nurtured and developed by people with far more “extreme” religious beliefs than Christine O’Donnell and for over 200 years we did pretty damned well. Our current state of ennui coincides with the rising influence of the left’s welfare state and the ongoing decline in religious belief. Is there a causal link? Who knows? I am agnostic myself, but I fail to see anything constructive in the decline of religion or the rise of atheism. All it means is that in the final analysis we don’t have a reason to exist and that all morality is artificial and conditional which again undermines the validity of the silly question.
You’ve got it all backwards. You’re the one endorsing this woman for the office of the President of the United States. Therefore, it is incumbent upon YOU to provide evidence for her “grasp” of these issues. The fact is you have none. I admire Palin for her many good qualities, but I’ve seen nothing in this woman that even remotely suggests that she’s the most qualified to be POTUS.
Unless you want to include her recent reality show: ‘Sarah Palin’s Alaska’.
I mean talk about looking presidential.
Something Bill Maher said that I strongly agree with is that Sarah Palin seems mean and bitter, whereas Christine O’Donnell seems sweet and fun. I don’t know if Republicans share this perception, but those were my feelings after just a few moments of hearing both of these women speak. I have often wondered just what it is about Palin that so utterly repels me, I even wondered if perhaps I was misogynistic in some way, but as I find O’Donnell equally nutty, but not at all repellant, I think I can safely put it down to something else.
Simon,
I have often wondered just what it is about Palin that so utterly repels me, I even wondered if perhaps I was misogynistic in some way,…
What repels you is called “good”. Corrupted and dark people are repulsed by the good and decent in others.
You are more than misogynistic no doubt. You surely hate people in general, no matter the gender.
Sarah Palin is like a Rorschach Test. If you don’t like her it’s not because there is something wrong with her. The fault is with you. There is simply nothing objectionable about her. Bill Maher knows she is the single biggest threat to the people of the lie like him (and probably you), and so he attacks her viciously. He reads O’Donnell as no threat at all, and so he says she is nice.
You need some soul self-reflection dude. You’re a seriously screwed up person based on your admission there. Although you do display a shred of honesty, which is a good sign.
View Charles,
You’re ex[posed. He asked a simple question, You ran away and tried to bully and bluster out of it.
Man up Charlie. Grow a pair and answer the few basic questions you’ve been asked about your ridiculous and undefended position in this matter.
You Palin fanatics are just as loopey as the hopey-changey nuts that elected Obama.
Given your logic, my dog hasn’t made any statments “in the last year and a half, that moves [me] to his conclusion about [my dog’s] failure to “grasp” these issues. Therefore, I must conclude that my dog is qualified to be president.”
Now, I ask you exactly what has Palin done or said that convinces you that she has a Presidential “grasp of monetary policy, foreign policy, the military, federal Constitutional authority, judicial precedents, the legislative process or federal executive authority”?
Now don’t give me crap about her “charisma, charm, or good humor” – leave that touchy-feely b.s. to the liberals.
You demonstrate to me why this woman would be a more capable President than Huckabee, Romney, Jindal, Thune, or Ron Paul.
Honestly, I’d love to see her compete. These guys aren’t bumbling, stumbling Joe Bidens. Any of these guys would rip Palin to shreds in a debate.
Mike Mc. Says:
October 18th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
Exactly. That some people are repelled by her says more about them than it does about her.
Vieux Charles Says:
October 18th, 2010 at 10:53 pm
Huckabee & Romney? Are you serious? Give me a break. They’re both big government Republicans. Been there, done that, don’t want the T-shirt.
Jindal? Maybe. I like him, but he doesn’t seem to have enough personality for national electoral success. Like it or not, charisma is a factor in politics. Maybe he’ll improve with time and experience.
Thune? Don’t know about him.
Ron Paul? He makes a lot of sense on economic issues, not so much on foreign policy. He seems profoundly ignorant of the nature and history of Islam. Most of the populace isn’t ready for his economic prescriptions, and won’t be until the dollar crashes and they are literally standing in breadlines.
I wouldn’t bet on it.
What repels you is called “good”. Corrupted and dark people are repulsed by the good and decent in others.
You know I’ve always thought myself a pretty good judge of character. Which is perhaps why my revulsion of Palin, and the same revulsion in others, interests me so much. Around the time Palin was running for vice-president I was reading “Blink” by Malcolm Gladwell. It made me think a lot about Palin in terms of first impressions. Blink is about the subconscious judgments we make on the spot. I wondered what it was about my history and experience and Palin’s manner that jarred so violently. I know she reminds me of a couple of callous girls I remember from high school, but surely there is more to it than that. There is a chapter in that Gladwell book on facial expressions and how they can be decoded. It is so interesting to me that my brain reads her facial expressions and sounds alarm bells, whilst other people see, how did you put it, “the good and decent.”
I cannot say with 100% certainty that I am not “corrupted and dark,” I leave open the possibility being a woolly-minded liberal and all, open to all ideas, but I certainly don’t feel that way. I really feel she has a screw loose and is mean with it.
And to move back to the land of reason, I know I have put myself in the firing line with all that talk of feelings, I find her ideas beyond the pale. Creationism? I think even on here people don’t give credence to this nonsense.
Simon Says:
October 19th, 2010 at 12:23 am
That’s interesting. I haven’t read “Blink”, but I liked her right off the bat.
I’ve often thought about how Palin and I are complete opposites. She’s devoutly religious; I’m an agnostic. As a wife and mother of five, she’s very family-oriented; I’m single and not very close to my family members. She’s an avid runner and fitness buff; I prefer a more sedentary life and am fond of my alcohol and tobacco. She believes in creation; I believe in evolution. I could go on and on. She seems to be the exact opposite of me in every way I can think of.
And yet I liked her immediately, and almost instinctively. Go figure.
P.S.: I also don’t find her to be “mean and bitter”, as you said in an earlier comment. Quite the contrary. I’ve remarked before about her relentless optimism and cheerfulness in the face of widespread public ridicule and defeat in the 2008 election.
Charles,
Wow. “Palin fanatics”.
That’s a joke and so are you. You had several chances just to defend your ridiculous position.
You wouldn’t. You couldn’t. You;re exposed. Get real.
… it is incumbent upon YOU to provide evidence for her “grasp” of these issues.
Now, I ask you exactly what has Palin done or said that convinces you that she has a Presidential “grasp of monetary policy, foreign policy, the military, federal Constitutional authority, judicial precedents, the legislative process or federal executive authority”?
A significant portion of the commentor’s list of qualification is either vague(“judicial precedents”?) or irrelevant. For instance, it is usually a President’s Chief of Staff that ramrods Whitehouse legislative initiatives. Think Karl Rove, think Rahm Emanuel.
It is my experience that most anti-Palin commentors use a double standard in this regard — unrealistic requirements for Palin, relaxed requirements for those they favor.
Furthermore, in my opinion most past American Presidents could not meet the commentor’s standards. And of the likely Republican nominees none have most of these requirements. I am forced to the conclusion that the commentor may not be voting for the GOP candidate come 2012 — as there is presently none of them that could meet the commentor’s requirements.
Palin’s grasp of some of the issues, taken from wiki, is below:
Palin opposed the 2010 health care reform package, saying it would lead to rationing of health care by a bureaucracy …
… Palin interprets the Second Amendment as including the right to handgun possession, and opposes bans on semi-automatic assault weapons and supports gun safety education for youth.
Palin supports off-shore drilling, and land-based drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. When commenting on the Gulf Coast oil disaster Palin said, “I repeat the slogan ‘drill here, drill now.'” She said, “I want our country to be able to trust the oil industry.”
She is opposed to cap-and-trade proposals, such as the American Clean Energy and Security Act, a bill still pending in the Senate.
Palin supported the Bush Administration’s policies in Iraq …
Palin supports preemptive military action in the face of an imminent threat, and supports U.S. military operations in Pakistan. Palin supports NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, and affirms that if Russia invaded a NATO member, the United States should meet its treaty obligations.
http://tinyurl.com/5vgob7
It is also well known that Palin supports the Tea Party principles of limited government, a free market economy and a strong defense. Just these alone qualify her in my mind.
Something Bill Maher said that I strongly agree with is that Sarah Palin seems mean and bitter …
The above is a good example of a phenomenon outlined in Neo’s post, “Valerie Jarett meets Orwell,” in which she illustrated “their tendency towards projection of their own worst traits onto others, and their need to invest Obama with exactly the opposite characteristics from those he actually exhibits.”
Lefties are actually the ones that are mean and bitter and of course they project these qualities onto conservatives. They all claim that conservatives are heartless, uncaring, cruel, unintelligent, etc. Standard Lefty boilerplate.
“Lefties are actually the ones that are mean and bitter and of course they project these qualities onto conservatives. They all claim that conservatives are heartless, uncaring, cruel, unintelligent, etc. Standard Lefty boilerplate.”
Glad you’ve got that all sewn up. I actually said I thought Sarah Palin was mean and bitter, not all conservatives, but no doubt you know best.
Simon: guess what—I’m going to defend you here! I think you are actually striving to understand feelings you have about Palin that you recognize might be excessive and perhaps even uncalled-for.
Why you perceive her as “mean and bitter” I really don’t know; I certainly don’t see her that way. She can be caustic and sarcastic towards opponents, but that’s hardly unusual, and she says most of what she says with an upbeat, optimistic air. But I don’t think that your perception of her as “mean and bitter” means that you are projecting your own meanness and bitterness onto her. I think that conclusion about you is a stretch based on insufficient information.
Earlier the commentor wrote:
Something Bill Maher said that I strongly agree with is that Sarah Palin seems mean and bitter …
My reply:
The above is a good example of a phenomenon outlined in Neo’s post, “Valerie Jarett meets Orwell,” in which she illustrated “their tendency towards projection of their own worst traits onto others, and their need to invest Obama with exactly the opposite characteristics from those he actually exhibits.”
Lefties are actually the ones that are mean and bitter and of course they project these qualities onto conservatives. They all claim that conservatives are heartless, uncaring, cruel, unintelligent, etc. Standard Lefty boilerplate.
The commentor’s rejoinder:
Glad you’ve got that all sewn up. I actually said I thought Sarah Palin was mean and bitter, not all conservatives, but no doubt you know best.
My statement refers to Lefties, i.e. Bill Maher, Valerie Jarett, who have been projecting their own unsavory and anti-democratic characteristics onto conservatives probably since the advent of Marxism.
I doubt that many readers would characterize the commentor, who has told us that he would vote for Palin over Obama(however grudgingly), as a ‘Lefty.’ I will leave it to the readers to interpret why the commentor assumed I was writing about him. Not a Freudian slip, exactly …
Vote for Palin over Obama? That ain’t me sport. But I accept your explanation. My apologies.
Thank you Neo, you are correct in what you say, I am genuinely curious about the reasons she grates on me so. If I come to any conclusions I’ll let you know.
Everything you’ve listed ANY Republican candidate would support, so you’ve failed to differentiate her from the the rest. As far as Romney’s and Huckabee’s “big government” past, review the political history of Reagan – you’ll find a very similar resume.
One thing that all these gentlemen have (Reagan had it in spades) and Palin utterly lacks: finesse – the ability to defeat an opponent without confronting them head on. Read Sun Tzu and Machiavelli, I guarantee Palin hasn’t – but I bet anything she’s read Obama’s ‘The Audacity of Hope’.
Simon: can I venture a guess?
I happen to basically like Palin, and I like much (not all) of what she says. I liked her from the beginning, but from the beginning most of the people I know have detested her and have had contempt for her.
So I’ve been exposed to many of the “reasons.” Some of course are policy disagreements; we needn’t go into that. The rest of it is class, style, personality.
I won’t bother to list all the possibilities (I’ve written a ton of posts about them; see some under the category “Palin” on the right sidebar). But a lot of it is stuff that involves speech patterns, perkiness, her physical presence (some people have trouble with a politician who’s beautiful and dresses the way she dresses, for example), and whether you think she’s sincere or phony in her mannerisms.
Palin has, for example, a somewhat high voice, and a very distinct regional accent that some people read (in a prejudiced way, I might add), as emotional and stupid. It’s a gut reaction to her, not very well-thought-out but quite deep.
She also has an unusual speech cadence and quirks of expression that are not conventionally “intellectual,” and she sometimes talks a lot. The former is seen as stupid (although intellectual and stupid are not opposites), and the latter as ditzy.
It goes on and on that way. I don’t know where you fall on the spectrum of Palin-perception, but those are just a few possibilities for the emotional reactions people have to Palin, which are often quite powerful. Bush had a similar effect on people for somewhat different reasons, although his speech patterns and accent was also part of it (“nukular”).
I’ve written about some of this here and here. It’s just the tip of the iceberg, though.
Vieux Charles: well, if Palin in fact made the “party like it’s 1773” remark partly as a trap for her opponents, that would be an example of great finesse.
I stand corrected. But my point, that Lefties tend to project their own worse characteristics onto conservatives, is still valid.
Everything you’ve listed ANY Republican candidate would support, so you’ve failed to differentiate her from the rest.
So far, I’ve NOT tried to “differentiate” Sarah Palin from other Republicans. The commentor erects a straw man. In fact, Sarah Palin right now would not be my first choice to run against Obama in 2012. But were she to win the nomination I would enthusiastically promote her.
One thing that all these gentlemen have (Reagan had it in spades) and Palin utterly lacks: finesse – the ability to defeat an opponent without confronting them head on. Read Sun Tzu and Machiavelli, I guarantee Palin hasn’t – but I bet anything she’s read Obama’s ‘The Audacity of Hope’.
Perhaps some of the readers, like me, are smiling at the commentor’s exquisite reasoning. Here the commentor justifies his dislike of Palin by mentioning some authors he supposes Palin hasn’t read. Poor simple Sarah is just not subtle enough for his taste. Myself, I find her directness refreshing but each to his own.
Neo: Superficially, I agree with some of your reasons. Her hair, the way she speaks, her cockeyed weird smile all grate on me, but it goes further than that.
I used to work for a woman who was very successful in her field, but whose primary motivation in life was the need to be loved en-masse. She readily admitted this, and even spoke candidly about it with her shrink. Everything she did, every opinion she held seemed conjured up in a bid to serve this end. I couldn’t take what she said seriously, as she would contradict herself on a daily basis. She said whatever was necessary to get the person in front of her at that particular moment to like her more. This is the feeling I get from Palin.
That was a long-winded way of saying I find her to be opportunistic in the extreme. The politicians I respect, a number which diminishes with every new year, seem driven to do some good. In Obama’s case I saw a problem solver, a man who wanted the power of the presidency, so he would be able to try out solutions he had spent a lifetime thinking up. I didn’t and don’t see him as the empty suit you make him out to be.
With Palin, all I sense beneath the surface is a whirligig of egoism. A naked drive for power purely for the sake of power. So she can be the best, the winner, the most loved. Her constant lies and the irrationality of her thoughts serve to heighten this perception.
I remain open to the idea that I am mistaken, if for nothing more than the love of finding out I have been completely wrong about something. The older you get, the rarer that becomes. In this case though I fear I am right and I would be filled with a silent dread should she ever become president.
Simon: I think you are completely wrong about this, and about Obama—not that Palin isn’t ambitious, like most politicians. She is. But it is clear to me that what she does is from principles she believes in, not in order to please or be liked. She thrives on controversy, and is one of the few politicians who really doesn’t seem to mind being disliked by a lot of people.
In fact, however, I think that you may have Obama and Palin mixed up. Much of what you said about Palin actually applies far better to Obama, such as (if you change the pronouns) the following:
Speaking of power for the sake of power, and opportunistic behavior, have you read this? And it was how Obama got his start in politics. It’s a revolting story, one of the first things I ever read about him, that cued me in to what sort of person he might be.
Her hair, the way she speaks, her cockeyed weird smile all grate on me, but it goes further than that.
Strange. Palin’s smile, which I would describe as pleasant, bothers the commentor. And her hair is called into question. The way she speaks, with the regional accent of an ordinary citizen, is also bothersome. As Neo has pointed out, Bush had this problem, too.
And Bush compounded the problem by trouncing his Democrat opponents in two races for Governor and two Presidentials. How could this fellow with a hick Texan accent spank them like babies? After all, Bush was stupid, everybody knew THAT. It must have been just blind luck.
I find her to be opportunistic in the extreme.
A lot of folks seem to dislike Palin because of her ambition. For Obama and other like-minded politicians to have ambition is fine and dandy but not the lady from the hinterlands. Oh no …
The politicians I respect, a number which diminishes with every new year, seem driven to do some good. In Obama’s case I saw a problem solver, a man who wanted the power of the presidency, so he would be able to try out solutions he had spent a lifetime thinking up. I didn’t and don’t see him as the empty suit you make him out to be.
We see here that the commentor is sort of a connoisseur of politicians. His respect doesn’t come easy and most don’t command his esteem. He finds Obama worthy, though.
And oh those “solutions”! In a short while we will see what the voters think about those solutions.
With Palin, all I sense beneath the surface is a whirligig of egoism. A naked drive for power purely for the sake of power.
Here the commentor reads Palin’s mind and detects there her monstrous motives. Ah, yes, it’s all perfectly clear to him. He can “sense” Palin’s evilness.
So she can be the best, the winner, the most loved. Her constant lies and the irrationality of her thoughts serve to heighten this perception.
The commentor does not bother to give us examples of Palin’s “constant lies” or irrational “thoughts.” But he writes it so it must be true. Right?
“Speaking of power for the sake of power, and opportunistic behavior, have you read this? And it was how Obama got his start in politics. It’s a revolting story, one of the first things I ever read about him, that cued me in to what sort of person he might be.”
I did read about that during the campaign, yes. It is a black mark against him and no denying. The second thing he did that pissed me off was when he broke his promises on campaign finances during his electoral run. I did not like that one bit. The third thing he did that pissed me off was not being altogether warm towards my homeland. He has a very good and noble ally there if he only realized it. Other than those things I am with him all the way. No one is perfect eh?
Simon: no one is perfect. But Obama’s actions reveal a character that is not just imperfect. Imperfections are errors or little flaws. He has revealed deep and serious character flaws that have been with him for at least fifteen years, perhaps for life. He betrays people and lies to them on important matters. It’s not something to brush off as being less than perfect. It is far, far more serious than that, and congruent with the way he has betrayed and lied to the American people—and not just his opponents, but his supporters as well.